Re: New name for TRIP-GW

At 21:07 22/09/2002 -0400, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

Is TGRP terminology corellated to ENUM (IAB-ITU) on
e164.arpa infrastructure?

>Yes. Please include this change in the next rev.
>
>-Jonathan R.
>
>Rajneesh Kumar wrote:
>>Should we take this as the consensus then ? I would like to incorporate 
>>this name change ASAP in the latest draft which is progress as I write.
>>Thanks,
>>Rajneesh ( for the  draft's authors )
>>At 11:24 PM 9/16/2002, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>>>OK, lets go with "Telephony Gateway Registration Protocol". Trunking is 
>>>too specific.
>>>
>>>The most important thing here, of course, is the statement that this is 
>>>not TRIP; that it uses a different back end processing (not the decision 
>>>process outlined in RFC 3219), but rather this consolidation process.
>>>
>>>-Jonathan R.
>>>
>>>Jayasimha M.R wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Jonathan,
>>>>I agree with Dhaval, TGREP sounds good. As i said earlier,
>>>>I propose to call this as:
>>>>"Trunking Gateway REgistration Protocol" instead of
>>>>"Telephony Gateway REgistration Protocol".
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Jayasimha
>>>>Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd like to propose a name change for the TRIP-GW (aka TRIP-LITE) 
>>>>>protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason is, as written, TRIP-GW is not actually an extension to 
>>>>>TRIP. Nor is it a subset of TRIP. It differs in the consolidation 
>>>>>process defined in the spec. This process, which allows an LS to keep 
>>>>>multiple routes to the same prefix, for example, is not compatible 
>>>>>with the decision process of TRIP. Its complementary, to be certain, 
>>>>>but thats not the same. If you took a normal TRIP LS and put it in 
>>>>>front of a TRIP-GW gateway, it would probably not do the right thing. 
>>>>>It would function, I think, but you would not be able to implement the 
>>>>>appropriate policies to process the information being generated by the 
>>>>>gateways.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do people concur with this view?
>>>>>
>>>>>If so, I would propose that we rename the protocol to the Gateway 
>>>>>Registration Protocol (GREP). I think the acronym is neat; the 
>>>>>protocol is used to search for a gateway, sort of, so grep (in the 
>>>>>unix sense) kind of works.
>>>>>
>>>>>The protocol syntax and semantics remain unchanged. We will simply 
>>>>>indicate that large pieces of TRIP are used wholesale by this 
>>>>>protocol, referring the user to the appropriate sections of the TRIP spec.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Jonathan R.